Iran war following "a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran " ((("Blamed"))) Carter Adviser

Welcome to the end of the world…if Bush stays in office.

Here is what former Carter National Security Adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski said yesterday before Congress about a war with Iran:



We’re in serious trouble. The “mythical narrative” is already known. The WMD lies, the exaggerated danger, etc. are well known. The phrase “a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran culminating” in a “defensive US military action against Iran” is STUNNING. He didn’t say Iran would “commit a terrorist act” because he has no way of knowing; he didn’t say this was “likely” given any intentions by Iran; he said “blamed on Iran.” The clear implication is something awful will happen and Iran will take the rap. He DOES NOT SAY WHO WOULD COMMIT THE ACT but it sure doesn't sound like Iran. We are in truly frightening territory now. Zbigniew Brzezinski is not a wild-eyed radical, yet things are bad enough for him to imply domestic generated terror to justify war. Good luck America! Is it impeachment yet?

HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Time: 9:15 AM
Place: 216 Hart Senate Office Building
Presiding: Senator Biden

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former National Security Advisor
(to President Carter
Counselor and Trustee
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

(1) The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

(2) Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody
involvement in Iraq,the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large.



This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran--though gaining in regional influence--is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self- ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

* * *
It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration’s policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.

The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should
involve four steps:

(1) The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.

Snip

(2) The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

Snip

(3) The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders,
or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of
Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.

Snip

(4) Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

Snip
After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.


(Thanks RichM for the tip)

So former Carter National Security Adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a 'tinfoiler' as well. I'd love his thoughts on 9/11.

He mentions 911 in there, check it out. It's quite amazing.

He's calling their bull shit. This could be one of those behind the scenes battle of the Titans
where just saying this has implications.

I never though I'd hear Zib say this stuff (not that I know him well, or at all, it's just easier
to use "Zib").

No point in packing, where would we go;) Oh yea, that Bush colony on the Moon.

"and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II."

Looks like the gig is up among those who actually think.

I suspect even Bush and Cheney won't contemplate such an event. The emperor is indeed naked.

I'm so glad I keep my tin foil hat handy - I never bought the official version of events.

Let me get a stronger cup of coffee. Everyone should read this.

I'm not sure whether he wrote it in the 70s or 80s. I kind of remember reading it in the 70s, but I don't think he would have written it until he was out of office, ie after 1981.

In it he said that war was obsolete because the US had the ability to temporarily incapacitate entire populations using space rays. I kid you not. He also wrote about mind control, if memory serves me. That book made the wildest theories about 9/11 seem like the front page of the NY Times reality consensus.

On the other hand, the book may have been disinformation to discourage foreign forces from challenging the US.

Right here at home

And the thing is, it is nigh impossible to tell if the ElectroMagnetic Soup that surrounds our population is deliberate or simply the result of too many cell phone towers in so many places.

But don't question why our citizenry is So-oo asleep at the wheel, ElectroMagnetic Frequencies are inducing the population into a state of acceptance.

Apparently, the book I was referring to was "Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era," which was first published in 1971. So he wrote it before he was in government.

So my recollection of reading it in the 70s is correct. We had already had one creepy, European-born, heavily accented national security advisor (Kissinger) and when the public was handed another creepy, European-born, heavily accented national security advisor (Zbig) a lot of people went out and bought his book to see what he was all about.

The book is actually quite idealistic about foreign policy. But what I remember as a college student was that everyone was passing around the bizarre passages Zbig wrote about the impending end of war because of the military's capacity for mind control. It was some kind of satellite based ray that could put entire towns or cities to sleep temporarily and in a non-lethal way.

I think he wasn't saying the military had this technology, but would soon have it. From what I've read, they probably developed the technology but didn't deploy it because of limits on space based weapons.

Here is one passage I've found on the net that shows how far, far ahead of his time Zbig's thinking was. Remember, this is 1971 before PCs, the internet, pervasive security cams, etc.; Brzezinski said in the book:

"It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous control over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date files containing even the most personal details about health and personal behavior of every citizen, in addition to the more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information."

The basic argument of the book was that Soviet-American conflict would begin to fade in importance in comparison to north-south conflict, ie conflict between rich and poor countries, over resources. Information and electronic technology (technetronics in his words) would be more important than hardware in economic and military matters.

His idea was that the US would have to appeal to the poor countries by providing hope of a better quality of life and greater economic security.

It's funny but that book had a big impact on my thinking on war, because ever since then, in the back of my mind I've always assumed that non-lethal methods of war must be possible because Zbig said they were way back in the 70s. When Bush I carpet bombed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi conscripts in the desert with B-52s, (killing in some estimates a quarter million soldiers), I remember wondering why the military didn't just "put them to sleep" as Zbig had promised we'd be able to do.

My conclusion was that Bush I was a blood-thirsty psychopath who actually liked real blood and guts killing, and wanted to preserve the primitive, murderous form of war.

On the other hand, I've always wondered, Zbig may just have been wrong, misinformed or overly-optimistic.

But what is utterly fascinating and compelling is found in the text box of the OP. Those two brief paragraphs provide an elegant summary of our current dilemma. Our situation is so reduced that this man of the establishment comes out and implies that the very worst fears we have are based on fact, as he tells it. He does know the region that he describes. In fact, he was a successful player on that field in terms of the initial stages of the anti Soviet strategy using Afghanistan as the hammer. Turned out badly down the road, very badly, but his move worked and the Reagan crew got the credit.

Now we have this.

Is this testimony some strange signal to the Neocons that their strategy will be revealed quickly, in this case, before the fact if they try this bone headed maneuver? Is this a "Hail Mary' absent grace attempting to try one last trick to stop the insanity awaiting us? I really have no idea. But I am sure that what is presented in this testimony is a very convincing case to reshape our institutions and government from top to bottom. They have ceased to function in a way that any rational person can understand. They don't even have a good story line.

Elites at this level often speak in a kind of code. He is giving one message to the public at large, another message to the Senators and another message to elites with inside knowledge, and another (a threat) to the Bush administration.

By writing about a potential false flag operation in one paragraph, using the word "mythical" and then discussing 9/11, I honestly believe he is issuing a threat on behalf of others in the security establishment, that if Bush tries to go forward with Iran, they will disclose something truly awful about 9/11.

I won't say what, because I don't want your excellent, important thread to be consigned to the dungeon. But I think it's a game of chicken in which more constituencies other than the Bush administration will lose out if those disclosures are made.

Kind of like mutally assured institutional destruction.

Another reinforcing memory of Zbig's musings on technetronic war was around the time of the Iran hostage crisis. Zbig and Carter's secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, were locked in a big debate about whether to use some kind of comando action to rescue the hostages. Vance was against it and Zbig was for it. Eventually, Zbig won out and Vance resigned office.

The military came up with a plan that involved US choppers going in after refueling in the Iranian desert. The attempted rescue went horribly wrong, with US helicopters colliding (I think with a US plane) and crashing in the Iranian desert. This was a huge black eye to the Carter re-election campaign.

I remember people in the media were actually asking why they would use something as low tech as commandos and helicopters when Zbig had told us we could just put Tehran to sleep for a few hours with their space ray, go in and get the hostages, and the Iranians would wake up a few hours later!

Kind of makes me think Zbig was bluffing or anticipating technology that didn't exist.

On the other hand I also remember sitting in my college apartment in 79 or 80 watching some news special about CIA mind control. (There was no cable so this was mainstream CBS, NBC or ABC news.) So they have this segment with a film showing a nerdy CIA "scientist" in a field with a cow. The scientist is holding a little box with a joystick. He turns the stick to the right and the cow goes to the right, turns the stick to the left and the cow goes to the left, he turns the stick back and the cow lays down!

My roomate and friends and I who were sitting around watching TV, just let out this collective "OOOOHHHH SHIIIIIT!" followed by hysterical laughing. It was horrifying, scary and incredibly, hilariously funny all at the same time!

The 70s were unspeakably weird and because of Watergate, the Church Committee hearings and the Congressional committee on assassinations, average people though the government was capable of just about anything.

Ideas and suspicions that were mainstream then are considered far, far out wacky conspiracy theory now. When Reagan became president it was like everyone decided on a normal consensus reality and we all agreed to ignore the fact that we had an insane uncle locked up in the attic.

transposed on the nation by television. The control that tv has on the nation, everything from mindless garble like American Idol, to the calculated propaganda from the "news" stations. Shiney, newer, better, faster-sell! sell! buy! buy! I mean we did have a majority of the populations accept several obvious elections thefts, ignored warnings of 9/ll, allowed the country to be lead to war with a country that had nothing to do with that attack,( although allowing 2 countries: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who did have direct ties to be regarded as allies); trample the constitution; ignore the Geneva Convention; profit obscenely; out a spy working on WMD counter proliferation in a CIA front business, Brewster Jenning, thus allowing others to be put in harms way; etc etc. Why use a ray gun when good ole tv will do just fine.

Things appear to be coming to a head. We are heading up the proverbial creek w/o a paddle.

:hi:

and exposure of the manipulation networks appears to be growing.

Some directed-energy weapons and systems rely on frequencies known to have physical, emotional and cognitive effects. The delivery of a frequency or subliminal signals from the hijacking of the transmitters and delivery to a target in an altered state of consciousness could be achieved with unforseen consequences outside of the predicted response(s).

In plain english-this stuff works in many ways. Reaction to knowledge of it is not predictable. We are nearing the waterfall that the creek took US to.

Here are some well researched and documented links that relate to what Brzezinski was well aware of.

"Electromagnetic Radiation (emr) Weapons: As Powerful As The Atomic Bomb"
by Cheryl Welsh February 2001
http://www.mindjustice.org/emr13.htm

Original "exotic weapons" portion of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's HR 2977 was not in the revision, HR 3616
"Section 7 Definitions
(2)(A)
(ll)(II)...
through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations;..."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

"Influencing Human Cognition: US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights"
by Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton-Project Censored January 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=phi20070109&articleId=4396

"Remote Behavioral Influence Technology Evidence"
by John J. McMurtrey 2003
http://www.V72.org/mind_control_remote.htm

fair use cited

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=28539&mesg_id=28539
Did any one notice the deal with FOX Series 24 detonating a Nuke in LA?


Please note that FOX one time did a Pilot for the Lone Gunmen the spin off from X Files and it came true
http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html
"The pilot episode, which first aired on March 4, 2001, concerned a terrorist plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the World Trade Center towers."

"The Lone Gunmen, the Complete Series (Fox) - Back in 2001, when The X-Files was breathing its last prime-time gasp, this oddball spinoff series hit the airwaves for 13 episodes. The three unlikely conspiracy investigators built their own little cult following with the show, still shot in Vancouver after the original fled to sunny California.
The most remarkable episode... aired just a few months before 9/11 with an incredibly prescient plot about terrorists hijacking an airliner and threatening to crash it into the World Trade Center. Except, in this plot, the terrorists were a cabal within the U.S. government itself.
On the episode's commentary track, the creators themselves cannot believe the irony. They recall how, in the immediate hours after the event when it wasn't known who was responsible, they feared their story might have inspired the real terrorists." -Canada.com (03/28/05)


Makes you think Especially if you are like me in close proximity to or actually live in LA!


'24' GO BOOM!
JACK CAN'T STOP NUKE
By MICHAEL STARR
After years of close calls,"24" dropped the big one.


January 16, 2007 -- '24' dropped a real bomb last night.

Fox's adrenaline-rush series ended last night's two-hour episode with the detonation of a mini-nuclear device in an L.A. suburb - destined to kill hundreds of thousands and throw the country into chaos.

In the thick of it all, of course, was crack CTU agent Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland), who recoiled in shock and horror as a nuclear mushroom cloud enveloped the daytime sky.

<snip>

"24" executive producer Howard Gordon said last week that the show's topicality this season "is a real concern."

"This season threatens to be too real," he said. "We live in a parallel universe . . . and the details of this season, especially, are frightening because they feel so real and plausible.

"We hope people embrace these concerns, and this <'24'> becomes compelling TV."

Internet gossip Matt Drudge quoted a Fox exec as saying the network is prepared for any "fallout" from last night's episode from cities which might be targeted in future nuclear explosions on "24."

The episode made it clear that there are four more nuclear devices possessed by the Arab terrorists featured in this season's plot.

Drudge also draws a parallel between last night's "24" and a recent CIA report outlining possible explosions using "low charge nuclear weapons" - like the bomb detonated in L.A.

"Time to wake the country up!" Drudge quoted an unidentified Fox exec as saying.

I'd bet that his financial empire is probably not what its cracked up to be.

The LA picture is unforgivable. I do recall a popular adventure movie a while ago where Baltimore was wiped off the map and the film ended with awards ceremonies in DC. Sounds familiar.

Great stuff

were killed by a kamikaze 747 attack on a full session of congress. this book was published a year or two before the project Boinka plans were discovered in the Philippines. humm I wonder where the terrorist get their inspiration for attacking us?

The most remarkable episode... aired just a few months before 9/11 with an incredibly prescient plot about terrorists hijacking an airliner and threatening to crash it into the World Trade Center. Except, in this plot, the terrorists were a cabal within the U.S. government itself.

Oh that's right, we're all still supposed to believe that "19 jackasses with box knives" bullshit, aren't we? :eyes:

Thanks for posting this (and to RichM, too). I probably would have missed it otherwise.

Why is this administration still in power? It boggles my mind sometimes.

someone with his stature repeats your thoughts and fears, you can only shake your head, scream WTF and wonder why they're not in chains yet.

Amazing, implies clearly that there could well be a domestic generated terror attack to further
the rationale for war with Iran. Reminds me of something I heard somewhere, don't know where...

historically and institutionally, why the administration is still in power:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x107703

The power of King George
This week Bush made another executive power grab -- and our own Constitution is largely to blame.
By Garrett Epps

Feb. 01, 2007 | Washington was treated to a curious American spectacle on Monday. A president repudiated by virtually every sector of the political system has responded by arrogating more power to himself.

Under the executive order Bush signed Monday, federal regulators will answer to a new set of Bush appointees in each agency, who will determine whether their proposed rules properly serve the Bush agenda. As Peter Strauss of the Columbia Law School told the New York Times, "Having lost control of Congress, the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch."

Bush's administrative power grab points to a serious flaw in the American system: our uniquely powerful, politically unaccountable executive. Americans take this system for granted -- we are taught in high school that it was designed by far-seeing statesmen. We seldom even notice how often it misfires, with results ranging from opera buffa (like the Clinton impeachment) to dangerous constitutional crisis (like the Nixon impeachment).

Crisis is what we are facing now. Public opinion has decisively turned against the president's war in Iraq, with voters dissenting where our system says they should -- at the polls. Congress, the supposed locus of the power to "declare war," is belatedly registering its disapproval of Bush's inept conduct of that war. Even the normally secretive military and national-security bureaucracies are busily signaling their objections to the commander in chief's plans.

In virtually any other advanced democracy in the world, government personnel and policy would by now reflect this political earthquake: Either the chief executive would have resigned, or the parties would have coalesced in a government of national unity. But here, the repudiated leader is escalating his war and proclaiming, "I'm the decision maker." Regarding Congress, Bush said during a recent "60 Minutes" interview, "They could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we're going forward." And now the president appears to be barreling toward a confrontation with Iran.

The framers had attempted to design something the world had never seen before: an elected chief magistrate for a self-governing republic. The major models they had before them were high-handed monarchs on the one hand and the relatively impotent governors of the states on the other. We shouldn't be surprised that they got almost everything about the presidency wrong. But if the presidency were a car, Americans would be asking for their money back. It's hard to start, hard to steer -- and nearly impossible to stop.

To begin with, the framers invented the worst system imaginable for electing a president: an electoral college, designed to protect the political influence of the slave states, that first misfired in 1800, created crises in 1824 and 1876, and most recently paralyzed the country in 2000.

Next, they gave the president a fixed term of office and made it all but impossible to get rid of one who is no good at his job. Impeachment by both houses of Congress seems to be reserved for cases of near-criminal conduct, and there's no equivalent remedy for incompetence or political bankruptcy.

"they gave the president a fixed term of office and made it all but impossible to get rid of one who is no good at his job"

You can kick them the hell out of office. Self preservation would have made any parliament kick these criminals out of office by now. A simple no confidence vote would have done it.

certainly suggests a criminal event.It an ominously ambiguous comment and very significant.Those in power to whom he is speaking certainly understand his reference and his willingness to utter this,in this context speaks to a schism in the elite.If things continue,and congressional impeachment is too slow,other players in the power structure may act.We may be approaching a historic juncture.Eyes open,it gets interesting ahead.

the democratic experiment.

He maintains his popularity with a shrinking sector of the public who would like to have a beer with him. The actual experience doesn't measure up to expectations as he is a "mean drunk."

In 1846, President James K. Polk ordered American troops into a part of Texas claimed by both Mexico and the United States. When Mexican troops attacked them, Polk demanded and got a declaration of war on the grounds that Mexico had started it. At the outset of the Civil War, Lincoln unilaterally proclaimed a blockade on the seceding states and raised an army (a clear congressional power) without any authorization. Afterward, he all but dared Congress to disavow his acts, which it did not. Harry Truman refused to ask Congress for any authorization for the war in Korea, claiming that the U.N. Charter empowered him to use U.S. troops there as he saw fit. Bill Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo, relying on a vote of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Both the Bushes consulted Congress before their Gulf wars -- but both also publicly warned that they would simply ignore a "no" vote.

Keith Olbermann on Countdown played clips from 2002 and now, side by side. VERY chilling.
Time for this international war criminal to go!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/01/iraq-war-part-deux

:yourock:

which was originally designed to create a quagmire for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in order to weaken it's influence. He would know that this is an exaggerated threat the US is using for imperial purposes. Ironically, using the attack by al Queda for imperial ambitions has now produced the quagmire in Iraq for the US and we are in the same danger of imploding the way the Soviet Union did. This cross roads in our history IS NOT the time for Congress to take impeachment off the table and abdicate it's role as a co-equal branch of government. To continue this way is to set US democracy into a death spiral. I give this a recommend.

The Soviet - US "grand game" is over, has been and is not necessary. The "blow back" is something that we're dealing with but it certainly seems like some have picked up the old slogans and applied them to a new jar of swill...a war with Iran. It's unconscionable and the act of true monsters.

Check out post 42 on this thread. Verrry interesting.

So that, just like with Iraq, we can say that we KNOW they have specific weapon capability -- because we SOLD it to them???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_go_co/military_surplus_stings



:grr:

cause now they can..:think: :shrug:

Iran should have known better than to take the bait.
Hadn't they seen this play before?

at Congress to invoke its power as a co-equal branch and put a halt to this mess. I'm afraid if we don't and they don't act appropriately, I will somehow move my family somewhere where I don't have to worry about this shit any longer. I can't tell you the sinking feeling I got when the words "impeachment is off the table" were uttered. This was in spite of all the reassurances I kept getting from people saying "investigations first" or this is the right strategy or we don't have the votes in the senate, we're having hearings and oversight, and so on and so forth. When do we hit critical mass?

By Reprenehsor of DU

Brzezinski Warns of Pretext for War With Iran

Great elaboration of why we should take Brzez seriously. He's not exactly a liberal,
if you know what I mean, so when he says this sort of thing, it's got to be his strong
and informed opinion.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/reprehensor/30

Thanks, auto.

only that blame would be assigned to iran.

there are plenty of foreign terrorists who might be interested in committing such an act of terror, especially if they knew it would trigger a u.s.-iran war. one could argue, in fact, that the shrubbies' posturing is in fact a SOLICITATION of a terror act.

of course, big z didn't *exclude* domestically-generated terror either....

From the testimony:



Here's how I see it. "provocation in Iraq" - I would think that means "provocation against the U.S". I know it's not there but it seems implied. Iranian mischief against Iraq is mentioned in the phrase before. But I could be off base.

Concerning the "terrorist act" the term "blamed" is key. Iran is "blamed" but did they do it? Dr. B seems to imply that Iran wouldn't be the culprit when he refers to "defensive" action on our part leading to an attack on Iran. The use of quotation marks around "defensive" indicates it's not quite so. You're right, the "terrorist act in the U.S." doesn't take us to "Operation Northwoods" automatically; but it doesn't rule it out either. From the internal logic of the statement: if this were to really work, the "solicitation" of a terrorist act that you mention would have to be deliberate. If that's the case then we've reached a consensus on this dreadful subject. The implication may be that the solicitation is domestic but the actors can be foreign.

It certainly is upsetting to hear this and from someone like Brzezinski who would know about these sorts of things. The only thing similar to what may be implied here, broadly hinted, is "Operation Northwoods" which was documented by James Bamford (respected author/researcher on intel). The "National Security Archive at George Washington University has this in the description of the documents on file: Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods "may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government."

This is very disturbing stuff, however you interpret it.

Thanks

Just wait for some set of Iranians to try it and then don't "see" the intelligence on it.

God I hope they're stopped before they're allowed to wag the dog again.

three dimensional?

If he's talking like this, given some of his previous positions and the whiff of neoconism that has hung around him for a while, he must be scared out of his britches by management.

with what Philip Giraldi was claiming back in 2005:


http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

Someone comes up and punches you and you turn around and punch some other guy you don't like at all, but who is just standing there. Makes perfect sense...if your Bush/Cheney.

blame it on the guy you don't like?

- the Cheney plan to attack I ran if a major terrorist attack occured in the USA, even if there was no proof I ran was involved??? http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/465654169/insert BTW if you haven't hit it yet.

Gawd, I hate reading this shit with my morning coffee ..........

THEY are the deciders. THEY are the reality makers.

(until something is done about them)

...domestically for the dangerous war criminals that they are. They seem especially desperate these days. I think they've given up on turning public opinion and will simply push forward with the PNAC agenda until either they are stopped, or our nation lies in total ruin.

We have to stop them IMPEACHMENT NOW

Wake up Democrats, you have a majority in the House and some pissed off Republicans in the Senate. Lets get our movement working. Time to stop all the madness!

When someone is this dangerous they must be prevented from doing any further damage FIRST.
You don't sue someone who is an immediate danger to the public, that takes much too long.

Just arrest them for treason and frog march their asses out of the White House

Impeachment will follow naturally and quickly from there.

Now that's an original idea. I'm so formal about the things.

How's Mexico. When do we get a visit from Commandante Zero

to allow the neocons to proceed with their insane plan. Cornered rats are indeed very dangerous. I happened to leave Scarborough on after Keith last night and was astounded by the level of concern he showed. Someone needs to march into the oval office (as well as the OVP) and prevent this maddness! NOW!

Zbig is clearly saying that the provocation would occur conveniently to start the war. It looks like he is definitely hinting at future MIHOP.

There's no need for this Iran stuff.

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," Brzezinski said.

Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad. But he said it would not lead to fundamental changes in the situation.

"It is a tactic, not a strategy," he said.

Brzezinski set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the U.S., followed by accusations that Iran is responsible for the failure and then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. This scenario, he said, would play out with a defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

_____________

"then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. " Well, they don't quoe him correctly and they take the jiuce out of it. It's a binary grading system: either get the meaning and express it or fail. I'd say that they fail. I could be wrong but this just doesn't do it.

Copmare it to this:

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening qquagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.. "

If he is saying this stuff, there is a power struggle amongst elites and even he thinks Cheney and Co. are madmen. Also see Fukuyama calling out the neocons as crazy. Look at what Zbiggie wrote in the Grand Chessboard. Does this sound like PNAC?

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

Here, he drops hints about a catalyzing event to solidify American hegemony in the 21st century;



Brzezinski, in my opinion, is letting us know what the sickest minds in Washington think-tanks are cooking up. I get the feeling that Brzezinski himself is feeling a "sudden threat or challenge to sense of domestic well-being."

And that ain't good.

PNAC's infamous paper, the one with "the new Pearl Harbor" reads like an executive summary of Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard", published in late 90s I believe. Brzezinski is just the latest one in a long string of powerful people who either sided with the Neocons or gave them ideas in the first place, and now distance themselves from them as things fall apart.

It was brzezinski who designed the policy to arm the Mujahedeed in Afghanistan, so they could put up a strong fight against the Soviet Union, which weakened Russia to the point where the US could say the cold war had been won. It worked, and as a Pole I guess I owe Brzezinski credit for indicretly giving me a free country to live in, more or less. But Brzezinski's policy also gave us Bin Laden.

This strongly indicates that they won't let the Bushites get away with their usual crap. They'll
only do stuff like this if they think they can get away with it.

I agree, though, impeachment is no longer just an option, it's an imperative (but then it always has been to most of us).

I've read the passage to two equally intelligent and informed people -

one got it immediately and the other took a bit of explaining. It's so hard to conceive, this sort
of madness, even for those who are up on it (like the people on this thread).

I think things are probably pretty dangerous now but you may be right: this could indicate that the
screw balls know that they're gig is up when people like Brzezinski lay out out in plain English.

He speaks exceptionally well, doesn't he;)

A lot of TV headlines yesterday about "Iran feeding weaponry to Iraq's insurgents"

etc.

The media's hypnotic chant seems to be: Okay so the public knows that Iran can't rpoduce a nuclear weapon for six more years - so let's show the other side - Iran responsible for the skyrocketing dath toll of our nation's military inside Iraq.

Never mind that the Bush non-strategy for the war effort in Iraq did not include protecting Iraq's borders. Or the Bush administration hand-picking ex-Iranians like Chalabi, etc to have positions of power in Iraq power elite.

The media will hammer this home unitl its goal is achieved - just as the public came to accept (by some 69%) that Iraq was linked to 9/11, so the public will come to accept this other nonsense.

It still seems most people get their news and persective off the TV .

There are alot of people who go to this site of other blogs and listen to the little liberal truth radio we do have .

But how many people ar sold by the TV hype that don;t look for other sources even if they have the time .

I too feel there are many americans who will fall into the fear and go for the attack on Iran and this is the big push right now .

This scares the hell out of me in more ways than just attacking Iran it also influences the economy and the lies about global warming .

A war with Iran is the most dangerous issue , all else will fall by the wayside if this happens .

I know a family who had high hopes that attacking Iraq would do the trick. Everything was a sign that Jesus was coming at any moment. At the time all I cared about was getting away from them without them trying to convert me again. The one good thing about knowing them is I have repeatedly seen for myself that some people in the good ole US of A really are convinced they can bring on the end times. if one war didn't work then another might do it. Alternet among others have done a good job following the political actions of people like this. so I worry not just about the average person who takes the evening news as the honest truth when it yanks their chain bringing on panic attacks where the only though is how to stop being afraid is to bomb yet another country back to the stone age.

Lobbying for Armageddon
http://www.alternet.org/story/39748

Although it sounds like the kind of Pat Robertson lunacy that makes even the wingnuts run for the nearest exit, it's a question Bush should be forced to answer. Bush and other leading Republicans have lined up behind a growing movement of Christian Zionists for whom a European Antichrist figures prominently in an end-times scenario. So they should be forced to explain to the rest of us why they're courting the votes of people who believe our allies are evil incarnate. Could it be that the central requirement for their breathlessly anticipated Armageddon -- that the United States confront Iran -- happens to dovetail so nicely with the neoconservative war agenda?

At the center of it all is Pastor John Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. While Hagee has long prophesized about the end times, he ratcheted up his rhetoric this year with the publication of his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," in which he argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. In the best-selling book, Hagee insists that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West. Shortly after the book's publication, he launched Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which, as the Christian version of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he said would cause "a political earthquake."

At CUFI's kick-off banquet at the Washington Hilton, attended by over 3,500 members, Republican support for both Hagee's effort and his drumbeat for war with Iran were on full view. Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman told the group that "no regime is more central to the global jihad" than Iran. Just two days before, Newt Gingrich and John McCain made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to sound the same message, leading Benny Elon, a member of the Israeli Knesset, to comment to the Jerusalem Post that their remarks originated with Hagee. Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback also addressed the group, and Bush sent words of support to the gathering. Republicans, and even some Democrats, spoke at CUFI events to show their "support for Israel." But while public and media attention was on the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Hagee's focus continued to be on Iran.

snip

While Washington insiders wonder what it means when Republicans like Mehlman and presidential aspirants Gingrich and McCain finger Iran as the central player in an epic clash of civilizations, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration.

There are renegades, more weekly, but the corporate offices are weenies. No risk, no reward.

I think it's time to put "media consolidation near the top of the agenda. Sen. Webb, R, VA (I just like
writing that) talked about TR and trust buseint. Lets stasrt with the 5 conglomorates what control so much, do them all at once.

These are fascinating times, no?

. . on her.

Even in the irrational "political calculus" that pervades their insular world, it ought to be dawning on them that the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney is a FAR greater risk to the future of the Democratic Party than even the worst of their (baseless) fears of impeachment.

Does she really want to go down in history as the ONE person who had the power to stop WWIII, but refused to act? As the leader who "cracked the whip" to silence every member who dared to utter the word impeachment? As a woman so deluded that she thought it was more important to pass a minimum wage increase than to stop the blatant, willful criminality, subversion, and international devastation being wrought by the Bush/Cheney WH?

Wake up and smell the coffee Nancy.

discuss it with others, write to columnists, sign petitions, speak at local meetings, support online impeachment groups with donations, demand it at all protests, slap on a bumper sticker, put a sign in our windows.

Here is a sign I carried in protests prior to the Iraq war:
"Support Our Troops: Impeach Bush"
And it was in Red, White and Blue!

K&R.

:kick:

according to past actions and words as if this exactly 1200% the case and putting forward our forces to deliberately bring this about. This is indeed MIHOP in broad theory and now actualized in irrepressible momentum much less whether any particular incident is cooked up which would be frosting on the war cake.

Open and undeniable unless you are a US "investigative" reporter following Britney Spears.

I'm sick of this "We have to be realistic" bullshit! We are being realistic goddamnit! This is no fantasy, the danger is for real! Do you want to live or die?

As a nation, we are in dire need of some outrage. It's here at DU but not many other places.

I can hear the chortles already, "tinfoil" this and that...fools.

This is a rare glimpse into the madness that prevails in the halls of power.

Thank you and your colleagues who post so often on subjects like this.

You folks inspire me!

> "nukular weaponz."

These people have gone around the bend and they're not coming back.

Great to see you!!!!!

To show the democrats what fools they are for letting it happen by promoting their non-binding resolution to placate the GOP?

He is laying out the secret plans of the Two-Headed Monster running our country. Keep Iraq occupation going until we can get into a war with Iran.

think that they can survive it.

We need a national work stoppage or some equivalent leverage.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

Zbig is right. The staging and the provocations have already started, to goad Iran into war.
Israel, the Dem's Achilles' heel could be the trigger.

This is just amazing. The game is up and they continue to pull this insanity.

How on earth is this tolerated?

Pictures at 11.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn....

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

rest assured... the mechanism is working against them ... but it might be Israel

Someone has to stop these guys!

The title is one of the least articulate titles I've ever seen on DU.

Here is an interview with Brezenzinski where he says very much the same thing.



More at source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,436607,00.html

And it sucks.

...and a rec :kick:

eventually I can imagine suicide bombers hitting within the US. because Bush has made America the biggest bully on the block.

Cheney and Bush will bomb possibly nuke Iran and then waltz off into the sunset laughing back to their bunkers...